Home

Agenda/Minutes 

Planning/Zoning

Assessing

Bulletin Board

Business Directory

Cemeteries

Clerk's Corner

Community Events

Contact Information

DPW

Development Documents

FAQ

Financial information

Heritage Days

Links  

Meeting Calendar

Newsletters

Officials

Parks

Plats

Planning/Zoning

PropertyTax/Assessing Data

Township Agreements

Rental Policy

Treasurer's Report

 

          

           MARION TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION

                   SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 - draft minutes

      

              PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECTION 6.20

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root

MEMBERS ABSENT:            None

OTHERS PRESENT:             John Ambrose, Planning Consultant

Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

*************************************************************************************************************

CALL TO ORDER

John Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:23 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dave Hamann made a motion to accept the agenda.  Jean Root seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

None.

OLD BUSINESS    

Section 6.20 F Cul-de-Sacs – new item #4

John Lowe stated the purpose of this Public Hearing is for clarification of how lot lines relate to Cul-de-Sacs.

John Ambrose stated new item is similar to Section 3.02, but indicates that any lot located on a Cul-de-Sac shall have its

side lot lines designed to be radial to the front property line or right of way line either on a private or public road. Except 

for such lot lines that would create uneven or inconvenient or irregular lot shapes.  This is for clarification as to how lots 

would be laid out and designed around the Cul-de-Sac.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

None.

ADJOURNMENT

Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:26  p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

                                              PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECTION 6.29

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root

MEMBERS ABSENT:            None

OTHERS PRESENT:             John Ambrose, Planning Consultant

Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

********************************************************************************************************

CALL TO ORDER

John Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dave Hamann made a motion to accept the agenda.  Jean Root seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

None.

OLD BUSINESS    

Section 6.29 Open Space Preservation – new language

John Ambrose stated due to new language being added, the township attorney and he felt it necessary to go through the 

Public Hearing process again. As background, in 2001, the State of Michigan passed a law indicating all townships shall

have cluster housing or open space preservation type language in their ordinances.  Over a year ago the township adopted

language but subsequently made minor amendments to it.  This in essence says as an option the developer may develop a 

parcel of land, from lot sizes and lot dimensions and lot frontages.  Density stays the same providing they keep at least 50% 

of the property as open space. One of the amendments added to this language dealt with greenbelt buffer areas. Under

that a new item was added: a 50’ greenbelt buffer area shall be established and maintained along any road, public or 

private, that provides access to a development and is not part of the open space preservation development and 25’ green

belt buffer shall be established and maintained along all other development boundaries and no case shall a lot or building 

site and/or unit occupy a greenbelt buffer area.  Greenbelt buffer area shall be established as common open space for a 

development.  Greenbelt buffer areas can be used in the calculations of open space. The Planning Commission may 

require additional landscaping if it’s deemed necessary.

Another change added indicated a Parallel Plan shall be designed to occupy buildable land only. All lots and/or building 

sites shall be designed with individual on site septic systems to be designed to the requirements of the Livingston County

Health Department. The Planning Commission shall review the Parallel Plan to determine the number of lots that could 

be feasibly constructed according to the Parallel Plan. This number as determined by the Planning Commission shall be

the maximum number of dwelling units allowed.

Jean Root pointed out it’s not a specific requirement; may require additional landscaping if it’s deemed necessary. 

What John Ambrose read basically states it must stay in its natural state.

John Ambrose stated that in this language the lot lines of the development would not go through the open space area.

The greenbelt buffer would not have any part of the lot line.  It would be common open space. Individual property owners

would not have the right to do anything on the 20’ wide greenbelt buffer between that and the boundary of the property. 

It can only be used as common open space. It was also stated that Mike Boss’ point is that if two adjacent property owners

want to maintain that area they can’t because it’s not theirs.

John Lowe stated Master Deed language dictates how buffer is maintained and John Ambrose agreed. 

Mike Boss pointed out that language should be reconsidered.  Jean Root stated the last line states: “The greenbelt 

buffer area shall be left in its natural vegetation.  However, the Planning Commission may require additional landscaping

 if it’s deemed necessary.”  Landscaping means it could be landscaped or left in its natural state. John Ambrose 

suggested using may instead of shall be left in its natural state. Jean Root and Jim Anderson stated concerns of substituting

may for shall due to future interpretation of new property owners. John Lowe suggested may but reference back to final 

site plan as submitted and be specific on the final site plan. After discussion, it was decided that the language was 

appropriate as written. John Ambrose stated the idea of protecting natural vegetation is that many property lines have 

natural tree lines or fence lines, that would keep them in place without removing them. He also pointed out if you were to

have the language read to just provide greenbelt buffer and delete language about natural vegetation, would open that up to

developers having to provide landscaping which could  create problems. Greenbelt buffer areas would be left undisturbed 

during construction also.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Mike Boss, Boss Engineering, pointed out if you have one subdivision abutting up to another subdivision, this 

would be mandating that they leave 25 feet if it happens to be brush, it would have to stay brush. People cannot 

mow and manicure and maintain that area.

David Smith, 328 Francis, thinks that the language is logical as it relates to the natural vegetation in the 

greenbelt buffer area.

Richard St. Onge questioned who owns that property, which is the association and the association pays the 

taxes on that from money from the homeowner. John Ambrose cited areas that are already in existence such

as Delcor-Hometown Village that has a huge greenbelt buffer around it owned by association. All property

owners have rights to it and pays taxes on it.

ADJOURNMENT

Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:44  p.m. Jean Root seconded.

Motion carried 5-0.

  

                       PUBLIC HEARING FOR SECTION 3.02

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root

 MEMBERS ABSENT:            None

OTHERS PRESENT:             John Ambrose, Planning Consultant

Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator                                            

*************************************************************************************************************

CALL TO ORDER

John Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda.  Jean Root seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

None.

OLD BUSINESS    

Section 3.02 – Definition of Lot Lines #3 Side Lot Line

John Lowe stated the purpose of this Public Hearing is for the definition of change of language and clarification of what

 happens to the lot lines on the end of a Cul-de-Sac and how they relate to the front of the Cul-de-Sac and the number 

of them on a Cul-de-Sac. John Ambrose stated the side lot line definition in ordinance indicates that any lot line other 

than front or rear lot line, new language has been added that indicates what shall be at right angles to a straight street 

and radial to curve streets and Cul-de-Sacs either on public or private roads except for such lines that would create 

uneven or inconvenient lot shapes.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

None.

ADJOURNMENT

Dave Hamann made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

        

              REZONING PUBLIC HEARING - ST. ONGE

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:   Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root

 MEMBERS ABSENT:            None

 OTHERS PRESENT:           John Ambrose, Planning Consultant

Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

                                               

*************************************************************************************************************

 CALL TO ORDER

 John Lowe called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.

 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dave Hamann made a motion to accept the agenda.  Jean Root seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

None.

OLD BUSINESS    

Proposed Rezoning Tax ID #4710-01-300-030, 031 & 032 From Suburban Residential to Urban Residential

John Lowe stated in spite of problem with mailings and notifications to immediate neighbors within 300 feet, the Public 

Hearing will proceed. The Public hearing will take place again but will open the hearing up to those who were present.

Mike Boss showed the Planning Commission the property outlined in yellow, which runs along 1-96 coming down D-19

to Francis Road, requesting a rezoning from Suburban Residential (SR) to Urban Residential (UR).  Property now is not

being used as SR and it is consistent with the more intensely developed areas within the township and does not push any

of the limits further out.

Mr. St. Onge stated he owns the property and the Eagles had approached him to buy a right of way through there and 

he informed them that Mr. Adler would be taking that over. But they would like another access and are receptive to a 

new means of ingress and egress. He also spoke to Howell Auto Repair.  They are receptive to the change.

John Ambrose reviewed and submitted a letter on August 13 regarding proposed rezoning.  The request is to rezone 

approximately 27 acres of land from SR to UR, as to allow a multiple family development similar to the Adler 

development on D-19 and Francis Road. The rezoning was evaluated and analyzed in terms of looking at the existing 

land use patterns in the area, with regards to existing zoning patterns also to see if it would be consistent with the 

Master Plan. The land to the north is the I-96 corridor and west would be mixed commercial type functions with a

church located in the area and adult care facility; to the east and south is scattered residential.

In terms of zoning, the site is zoned SR. The land west of the site is highway service commercial classification. 

The north of I-96 corridor is zoned for mobile home park and east and south of site is zoned in the SR classification.

The Master Plan calls for this area to be planned for mixed urban land use which provides for housing ranging from 8-10 

units per acre. This is consistent with the rezoning request proposed plan.  It would also allow for commercial uses such as 

service stations, hotels, motels, restaurants, commercial office uses as well as LI uses. The residential use would be more 

consistent with the adjacent properties to the east and south than non-residential uses.

John Ambrose’s recommendation was to recommend approval of this rezoning based on a number of reasons:

1)      Rezoning is consistent with existing land use patterns already found in this general area.  The UR district would 

allow up to high density residential capable of allowing up to 10 units per acre (which is consistent with what the 

Master Plan calls for.)

2)      The proposed rezoning would be in harmony with the existing zoning pattern that would lie east/south and west of 

the subject site.

3)      The proposed rezoning request is in keeping with the township’s Master Plan.  The Plan use policies have been 

adopted by the township for this area.

4)      The rezoning and potential land use would provide an excellent land use buffer from the I-96 corridor to the north 

of this site and from the commercial zoning developments located to the west to other single family developments 

located south of the site and east of the site.

5)      The zoning recommendation does not imply that the attached plan submitted would be approved.  It’s only being

 used as a visual aid.

6)      Subject site is zoned to this category, the applicant would have to submit site plan for site plan approval and special 

use permit approval, which is consistent with mobile family rezoning requirements in UR district.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

John Lowe read letter from Louise Dodd, dated 9/23/03 and also Louise Dodd’s letter, dated 9/23/03, submitted 

just before the meeting began. John Ambrose also commented on the two letters. The first letter made 

mention of not receiving proper notice and that’s why it was stated the Public Hearing would be held again. 

The second letter made mention of property owner seeing the plans of the applicant. The applicant is not 

required to submit plans for rezoning.  That would be contract zoning issues.  Those issues are dealt with 

after the property is properly zoned, goes through a site plan review process, goes through another Public 

Hearing process, in this case because it requires a Special Use Permit, whereby the Planning Commission 

can establish conditions on the approval.  At this point, by law, look at only what the district allows to be 

developed at this point.

ADJOURNMENT

John Lowe stated this Public Hearing will be tabled until the next regular meeting.

Jean Root made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing on proposed rezoning at 8:05 p.m. 

Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

               PLANNING COMMISSION - REGULAR MEETING

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Jim Anderson, Debra Wiedman-Clawson, Dave Hamann, John Lowe, Jean Root

MEMBERS ABSENT:            None

OTHERS PRESENT:             John Ambrose, Planning Consultant

Bob Hanvey, Township Supervisor

                                                Annette McNamara, Zoning Administrator

                                               

*************************************************************************************************************

CALL TO ORDER

John Lowe called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Dave Hamann made a motion to approve the agenda.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded.  

Motion carried 5-0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

August 26, 2003 Public Hearing

Jean Root made a motion to approve the Public Hearing minutes from August 26, 2003. Dave Hamann 

seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

August 26, 2003 Regular Meeting

John Lowe asked for clarification for the following:

-          Page 5, Preliminary Site Plan Review Fox Meadows, second paragraph, last sentence beginning with

 “According to Section 6.13……; he would like clarification

-          Page 5, bottom, beginning with “The minimum road width….” Discussion was that there was a language

 differential between where they were using edge of metal or what they were using. It was in reference to 

that – needs clarification (the township is using Livingston County standard and they used one basis to 

reference and Livingston County Road Commission uses another one)

-          Page 6, first paragraph, Fox Meadows owns everything other than 25’ easement is referencing retention 

pond, so it needs clarification

-          Page 6, third paragraph, first sentence 250’ is not a slope – it is a distance requirement. Change wherever

 250’ slope is referenced.

-          Page 6, sixth paragraph, “John Lowe asked if the township should extend, add sanitary sewer, that while…..

-          Page 6, seventh paragraph, third line down, “Debra questioned whether – need to clarify

-          Page 6, eighth paragraph, next to last sentence, “That’s required by the Road Commission – needs clarification

-          Page 6, eighth paragraph, insert on page 20 of Master Deed

Dave Hamann made a motion to table the minutes of 8/26/03.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

OLD BUSINESS

Preliminary Site Plan Review – Pardiac Shell Addition

Jean Root made a motion to table the Pardiac Shell Addition until the applicant requests to be added to a regularly 

scheduled meeting.  Jim Anderson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Proposed Rezoning Tax ID #4710-01-300-030, 031 & 032

Dave Hamann made a motion to set a Public Hearing for October 28, 2003 at 7:15 to hear public comments on the 

rezoning of Tax ID #4710-01-300-030, 031 & 032 from Suburban Residential (SR) to Urban Residential (UR).  

Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

Dave Hamann made a motion to table the rezoning until after the next Public Hearing. Jim Anderson seconded.

Motion carried 5-0.

Final Site Plan Review – Fox Meadows

Chris Fleck, Advantage Civil Engineering, appeared on behalf of Echelon Homes, to present final site plan with revisions 

based on comments from the Planning Commission members at the August 26, 2003 meeting. Chris Fleck submitted the

following letters: 8/29/03, from Patrick Keough to Planning Commission, cited revisions based on comments from 8/26/03

Planning Commission meeting; letter dated 8/29/03 from Patrick Keough to John Ambrose; letter dated 8/29/03, from 

Patrick Keough to Tetra Tech; letter dated 9/11/03, from Gary Markstrom to Annette McNamara.

John Ambrose stated he had two issues with the Site Plan. One was the landscape plan how northeast and west property 

lines would be landscaped. He believes the applicant met this criteria; two, area on site plan that was labeled as 20’ x 20’ 

sign easement. The applicant stated a final design has not been determined. When sign is designed, the applicant will 

submit a plan for review and approval from the Planning Commission.

John Ambrose stated he would recommend approval of final site plan submittal from a planning and zoning point of view

with no additional conditions. He also noted the Private Road Maintenance Agreement, Master Deed and bylaws will need 

review approval by the township attorney. John Lowe questioned the existing house on Mason Road and Burkhart, 

would the intent be to hook into the new sanitary sewer? Mr. Hysen stated that’s not the case at this time but would be 

available.  John Lowe pointed out the retention pond is within 50’ of the existing drain field. Isolation distance between the 

drain field’s detention pond is a Livingston County Health Department requirement. 

1)      There’s a drain field between the house and that and requires a 50’ isolation distance, which isn’t being met. 

Cheryl Burgette, property owner of house on corner of Burkhart and Mason, was present and stated she intends to

 hook up to sanitary line

John Lowe read the paragraph from Mike Kehoe’s, Township Attorney, letter regarding the easement issue. “There 

definitely has to be a separate agreement between the developer and the property owner regarding the detention pond. 

There should not be approval given, even contingent, without an easement agreement between the developer, the 

association and the property owner.”  Mike Kehoe’s letter dated 9/23/03 was distributed and John Ambrose will review.

Chris Fleck stated it’s their belief that the Planning Commission just recommends approval and then the Township Board 

actually grants the approval. There would be no contingency at that point and would be cleared up.

Annette McNamara read the last sentence of Mike Kehoe’s letter on page two, “Failure to obtain the consent of the 

property owner could have an effect on the overall detention requirements of the project.”

John Ambrose responded that the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Township Board subject to 

easement being in place.

Debra Wiedman-Clawson questioned the developer regarding purchasing .997 acres where the barns are. They’re only 

asking for the 25’ easement for grading.  Mike Kehoe is assuming the detention pond is an easement. It is not. They are 

purchasing.  The issue Mike Kehoe has is that Planning Commission did agree to them securing the 25’ grading easement

to the detention pond after final approval.  First, they have to prove that they own the .997 for the detention pond and the

Planning Commission did agree to have the 25’ easement agreement afterwards because then they would have the pond 

and work with the homeowner to get the easement.

There is a two-fold issue:  1) have to prove they owned the .997 in order to put detention pond could be placed where they

wanted to. Then 25’ was for the grading of it; which was allowed to be done after the fact, contingent, and have Board 

give final approval. Mr. Hysen stated they have a purchase agreement with property owner, Cheryl Burgette.

Annette McNamara stated the barns on property may pose a problem on land division application. To create that parcel 

you would be creating two non-conforming structures.  The township cannot approve parcel splits if it creates 

non-conforming structures. Chris Fleck inquired about demolition permit and Annette stated waivers are given for 

demolition of structures.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson pointed out the property owner would have to have them removed 

first before considering the land split. John Lowe stated that the homeowner could post a performance bond stating that 

they will be torn down by a certain date. John Lowe stated he stands by attorney’s last paragraph regarding no final 

approval until detention agreement is finalized.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated this would allow time to look at wet basin 

issue whether there was a way to deal with wet basin because of potential of West Niles Virus. John Lowe suggested 

possible remedy to this problem that there’s a sand bottom drainfield and excavating a portion of the detention basin would

allow for the material to drain. Another option would be based on volume usage that could be cut at 917 and regrade to an

approximate ½% slope instead of 1%. Debra Wiedman-Clawson also addressed the issue of a culvert being cleaned and 

the Livingston County Road Commission does not object to a contractor willing to clean out a culvert at their expense.

She also pointed out that the contractor stated they had been told no, they could not do that. Chris Fleck and developer 

stated they would have no objection to cleaning the culvert out but would like to get final approval to site plan first.

Dave Hamann asked the developer if these items would be finalized by October 6th and Chris Fleck again stressed the 

Planning Commission is the recommending vehicle to the Township Board. Annette McNamara stated due to property 

owner saying there were issues being addressed, the township put a hold on the land division application and had not heard 

back from anyone.  Cheryl Burgette stated she had signed that new purchase agreement for easement.

Jean Root pointed out that in reviewing past minutes, the first time this was reviewed was June 2003. She also pointed out 

that it is not often that the attorney will blatantly come out and say “this document needs to be provided for final approval.”

 In Jean Root’s opinion due to this stand, this should be denied until further information comes forward.

Dave Hamann stated minor changes were requested before finalizing site plan and clearly they have not been met.  After

discussion amongst committee members they agree these issues need to be addressed to satisfy attorney’s concerns even

thought developer feels they have satisfied these issues.

Again, Debra Wiedman-Clawson read from past minutes stating, “Debra Wiedman-Clawson would like to see paper showing 

ownership of .997 acres and permanent easement.  Jean Root pointed out this was tabled on June 24, 2003 with no 

preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Hysen stated they do not want to purchase easement until they have site plan 

approval.”  He spoke only to the easement and the Planning Commission were in agreement that easement could be 

done later on. Pat Keough stated in an effort to get project going, that with site plan approval he could begin with 

pulling permit application approvals with the state such as water and sewer.   Jean Root expressed concerns of sending 

this to the Township board for site approval with a laundry list of things to be addressed and completed and also

township attorney’s statement of not proceeding until issues are addressed.

John Lowe stated site plan issue are the holes in the bottom of the retention pond and the sewer which is off site. 

Debra Wiedman-Clawson, speaking as a homeowner of Lot 27, agreed that as long as there’s documentation on the 

wet pond issue, that is addressed and noted for site plan, she would not have a problem with this issue.

Chris Fleck pointed out as a word of caution, that drilling a couple holes in the detention pond does not guarantee that

water will not stand there, which was understood. Chris Fleck requested township attorney be present at next meeting

and Annette McNamara explained if they have the money in escrow to pay for his attendance that would be fine.

Jean Root made a motion to table the Final Site Plan approval for Fox Meadows until documentation is provided for the 

following list:

1)      That they need to supply the document that has been approved for the boundary line change;

2)      That a $20,000 performance bond for removal of barns be provided with a one year expiration date from final 

site plan approval from the Township Board;

3)      That the grading easement documentation between the developer and association and property owners be 

provided for the Township’s attorney’s review and approval;

4)      That documentation be provided for the REU sewer only hook up for the adjoining lot on the western corner, 

3983 Mason Road;

5)      That the September 11, 2003 Tetra Tech letter corrections be made, and;

6)      Lastly, the comments regarding two holes in the bottom of the detention pond as per discussed at this meeting 

be added.

All documentation should be provided by October 7, 2003 for consideration at next regularly scheduled Planning 

Commission meeting on October 28, 2003.  Dave Hamann seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

Final Site Plan Amendment – Timber Bluff

David Gee appeared on behalf of Ore Creek Development to request amendment Final Site Plan for Timber Bluff. 

Relocation of the sign and light posts at the entrance.  They would like to install two “break away” type light poles in 

the island. The entrance sign is redesigned. John Lowe asked about height of light poles and wattage of lights. David 

Gee stated at this point this is unknown.  John Ambrose stated on original site plan, it was a 35 watt bulb. They are just 

adding a second light.  John Ambrose stated this is highly desirable from a public safety point of view. He also questioned

 what type of lighting this would be and stated probably sodium vapors/amber type. Jean Root made a motion to approve

the amended Final Site Plan for Timber Bluff. Amendment to include sign and lighting at entrance with the following 

conditions:

1)      That the lights on the light poles be sodium vapor bulbs, and;

2)      That low wattage lights be used from ground level to point at the sign.

  Dave Hamann seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Proposed Ordinance Amendments

Section 6.14 – Home Occupation

Jean Root made a motion to table Section 6.14 – Home Occupation – until next regularly scheduled meeting.  Debra

Wiedman-Clawson seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

Section 3.02 – Definition of Lot Lines #3 Side Lot Line

Jean Root made a motion to send Section 3.02, definition of lot lines, Item #3, side lot lines to the Livingston County 

Planning Commission for their review and recommendation.  Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

Section 6.20 F Cul-de-sacs – new Item #4

Jean Root made a motion to send Section 6.20 F Cul-de-Sacs adding new item #4 to the Livingston County Planning 

Commission for their review and recommendation. Debra Wiedman-Clawson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

Section 6.29 Open Space Preservatio n

Jean Root made a motion to send Section 6.29 - Open Space Preservation Option to the Livingston County Planning 

Commission for their review and recommendation language to be sent from John Ambrose letter, dated, August 15, 2003.

 Jim Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0.

Review of Site Plan Checklist

Annette McNamara distributed copies of Hamburg Township’s site plan checklist.  John Ambrose commented

that in his opinion there are some serious problems with the way it is written. In all of their process of reviewing

a site plan, all of their site plans are recommended by the Planning Commission instead of the Township 

Board. State statute does not provide any provisions for the Township Board to review all site plans, which is

specifically a duty of the Planning Commission Special Use approvals, or condo development, that can make

sense. To give carte blanche site plan approval by a Township Board is a problem due to:

1)      It’s not consistent with State statutes or Municipal Planning Act – any planning acts it’s not consistent 

with.  Reason for this is due to basic government with separation of powers in government – legislative 

branch, executive branch and judicial branch.

2)      Township has the same thing – Township Board (executive board), Planning Commission (quasi 

legislative board), ZBA (quasi judicial branch)

All have certain criteria by State statute that have certain duties and responsibilities. This avoids becoming 

involved in a political process.  Hamburg Township’s checklist negates this and gives Township Board of Trustees

approval for everything.  Poorly designed and written.

John Ambrose pointed out in his Site Plan Checklist, page two, has two boxes for site plan review – 

preliminary and final.  This whole package would be the application given to applicant.  Applicant must fill out 

all questions on page 3-5, which are criteria form township ordinance to be met by site plan.  John Lowe 

suggested adding an additional sentence that fees are reviewable. John Lowe questioned the consultant’s 

fee schedule.  John Ambrose stated review fees with major changes is same as original; minor revisions is 

half the cost; one like Timber Bluff’s that is so minimal, was done on an hourly basis. He will add additional 

sentence regarding fees are reviewable and GIS aerial photo can be added in application process.

Jean Root made a motion to send to Township Board for review.  Dave Hamann seconded. 

Motion carried 5-0.

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Pete Maxfield inquired about the cluster housing (Open Space Preservation Option) that has been amended.

 A copy is available at the counter.  The Livingston County Planning Commission reviews the third Wednesday 

of October. November 11, 2003 the Board of Trustees will review it.

Jean Root distributed a list of Phase II REUs that Sue Lingle gave to her.  Sue Lingle stated that some numbers

may go to some place else. She also provided a map of where they are at in the township under assessment.  

This list does not include REUs that have been paid in full. Also, the numbers are only for subdivisions.

Jean Root asked how many exactly can the township add on to that? She would like to know how many REUs

are available for the township to use?  Bob Hanvey stated with two expansions it would be 8400.  Those are all 

for Marion Township.  Debra Wiedman-Clawson stated as of now there are about 700 that are unspoken for

over an eight year period. Jean Root questioned can we buy back instead of taking from the 700 unspoken for.

Dave Hamann stated the process will be that the township is the middle person in the exchange and take them 

back and refund them what they paid plus their interest and sell them at today’s rate (whatever the rate may be 

at present) to the new developer. John Ambrose stated Master Plans should designate residential areas by 

density. High density is covered in Urban Residential (UR) by Master Plan and not allowed to expand further 

south than it is, which would be Delcor, nor allowed to expand to the west anymore than it is. It was also 

discussed the township needs to look at what is UR and encompass that and not go much beyond those 

boundaries.

ADJOURNMENT

Dave Hamann made a motion to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.  Jean Root seconded. Motion carried 5-0.